Rajasthan Court July 1968 Judgments
Dholpur Glass Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi and Raj ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj142
Chhangani, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 66(I) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Branch 'B', by which the following question of law has been referred to us for our answer :-- 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in disallowing the payment of Rs, 60,000 under Section 10(2)(xv) and/or Section 10(1) ?' 2. The material facts are these: The assessee is the Dholpur Glass Works Ltd. a public limited company (hereinafter referred to as the assessee company) formed in the year 1946. By an agreement dated 18-2-1945 the assessee-company appointed the firm of M/s. Agarwal Brothers of Agra as its Managing Agents. M/s. Agarwal Brothers were to be paid managing agency commission equivalent to 12 1/2 per cent of the net profits of the assessee-company besides office allowance of Rs. 1,000 per month. Initially the assessee-company started manufacturing commercial gla...
Tag this Judgment!Johari Mal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj146
Kansingh, J. 1. I have before me a group of four writ petitions by which the several petitioners challenge the vires of Sections 104 and 107 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (Act No. 38 of 1959, hereinafter called the Act), as also certain notifications issued by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 104 of the Act imposing octroi in the concerning municipalities. As the writ petitions raise common questions, they can conveniently be disposed of together. 2. I may give the facts with, reference to writ petition No. 1503/64 Joharimal and others v. The State of Rajasthan and another. Writ Petition No. 1533 of 1964 Jaishiv and others v. The State of Rajasthan and another is identical with Joharimal's writ petition. Both these writ petitions relate to Abu Road Municipality. Writ Petition No. 1832 of 1964 Shivcharan Lal and others v. The State of Rajasthan and another is for Bari Municipality in district Bharatpur and the fourth writ petition Prabhu Dayal and...
Tag this Judgment!Ramsingh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj41
Lodha, J. 1. By this writ application the petitioner has challenged the correctness of the judgment of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, dated 24-12-60, whereby the respondent No. 7, namely Smt. Roop Kanwar, daughter of Thakur Jait Singh, the last holder of the jagir of Charwas, was recognised as his heir and compensation on account of the resumption of his jagir was ordered to be paid to her. 2. We do not think it necessary to act out the facts stated in the writ application in detail, as. in our opinion, the writ application deserves to be disposed of on the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 7. The preliminary objection is that the present writ application is not maintainable. In order to appreciate the preliminary objection, it Would be necessary to give a few facts leading to the filation of this writ petition, 3. The impugned decision of the Board of Revenue was given on 24-12-60. A writ application challenging the correctness of the said de...
Tag this Judgment!Gullaram Vs. Govindram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj123
D.S. Dave, C.J.1. This s a debtor's application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it seeks to challenge the correctness of the decision of the learned District Judge, Jhunjhunu, dated 8th May, 1962, given in a revision application filed against the order of the Civil Judge, Neem-ka-thana, dated 25th November, 19612. The facts giving (sic) it are as follows:The non-petitioner No. I before this Court, that is, Govindram. had obtained against the petitioner two decrees from the Civil Courts, one dated 29th March, 1957 for Rs. 593/- and the other dated 18th April, 1957 for Rs. 887/-. The Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (No. 28 of 1957), which will hereinafter be referred to as the 'Act', came into force from 15th May, 1.958. On 24th February, 1960 the present petitioner Gullaram presented an application under section 6 of the Act in the Court of Civil Judge, Neem-ka-thana which was also a Debt Relief Court according to section 3 of the Act. The said...
Tag this Judgment!Ladulal Vs. Keshavdas
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj112
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 6th March, 1965, of the learned District Judge, Jhun-jhunu by which the petitioner's appeal was rejected and the order passed by the Civil Judge, Sikar dated 18th November, 1963, was upheld,2. The facts giving rise to the present application may briefly be stated as under; Keshavdas opposite party in this case filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3176/- against Ladnlal petitioner in the court of the Civil Judge, Sikar. The petitioner filed his written statement in the suit, issues were also framed and on 17th September, 1962, when evidence of two witnesses of the plaintiff was to be recorded he did not put in appearance in the court and his counsel also pleaded no instructions. The court then proceeded to record the evidence of the plaintiff and decreed the suit with costs on the same date.3. The petitioner then made an application before the Civil Judge for setting aside the ex parte decree which was re...
Tag this Judgment!Ghasiram Mangilal of Sambhar Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC262(Raj)
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the assessment orders passed against the petitioner on 18th February, 1965, in respect of the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65 on the ground that the sales tax assessed on the sale of imported 'bardana' is invalid.2. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of commission agent for the sale of gunny bags which come under the category of 'bardana'. Under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, The Government of Rajasthan issued a notification which runs as follows:-Excise & Taxation Department Notification, Jaipur, August 11, 1959. No. F-5 {139) E. & T./57.-In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Act No. 29 of 1954) and in supersession of this department notification No. F. 5 (139) E. & T./57, dated the 19th December, 1958, the State Government being of the opinion that it...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Singh Vs. Bhan Mal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj109
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J. 1. The plaintiff filed a suit against Manohar Lal, Bhan Mal and Jamna Lal in the Court of Munsiff, Kota, on 5-11-60 for dissolution of partnership and for rendition of accounts. A preliminary decree was passed on 9-2-61, and Shri Kan-haiya Lal, Advocate, who had already been appointed a receiver during the pendency of the suit, was also appointed commissioner to go into the accounts and to carry out thedirections contained in the preliminary decree. While the matter was pending for passing of final decree, an application was made by the plaintiff on 12-5-63 to the effect that the receiver, viz. Shri Kanhaiya Lal, had not carried out his duties inasmuch as he did not file the report in time and also did not file suits against several debtors of the partnership firm with the result that claims amounting to about Rs. 20,000/-due to the firm, became time barred. It was, therefore, prayed that the receiver Shri Kanhaiyalal may be directed to make good the loss occasioned...
Tag this Judgment!Tickooram Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj129
Bhandari, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. A lease for stone quarry No. 11.19 in Fidusar area, Tehsil Jodhpur, was granted to the petitioner on 28th April, 1964, by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur. Shrimati Kaushaliya Devi, respondent No. 2, filed an appeal against the aforesaid order to the Director of Mines and Geology. The appeal was dismissed on 18th June, 1964. Respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal to the Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, under Rule 43 (2) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called the Rules). This appeal was heard by the Secretary to the Government of Rajastnan, Industries and Mines Department. On 33th January, 1966, he submitted a note for approval to the Minister Inchar^e of thai department stating therein that the lease of the quarry in question be granted to Shrimati Kaushaliya Devi as her application was received earlier than that of the petitioner. In the note he took notice of the arguments add...
Tag this Judgment!Manphool and anr. Vs. Dulichand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj169
Dave, C.J. 1. This is a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Manphool and Sheoram who are residents of Rejri in district Ganganagar. It is urged that the decision of the Board of Revenue dated 25-10-60 passed in Second Appeal No. 6/56 Dulichand and Ors. v. Manphool and Sheoram is manifestly wrong and therefore it is prayed that it should be set aside and the learned members of the Board should be directed to rehear the said appeal and decide it afresh on merits. In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioners, it would be proper to narrate briefly the facts which have given rise to this application. 2. The petitioners filed a suit on 14-3-52 in the court of Assistant Collector, Rajgarh, It was averred by them that their father had Khatedari rights over a field of 90 kachcha bighas, namely khasra No. 142 in village Rejri. He died in Samwat 1992 and at that time, petitioner No. 1 was four years old. while petitioner No.2 was only a few months old. I...
Tag this Judgment!Sajjan Singh Bhairun Singh Vs. Sajjan Singh Jagannath Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj82
ORDERL.S. Mehta, J. 1. This is a criminal reference submitted by learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, recommending that the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur, dated January 27, 1908, for the appointment of a receiver to manage the attached house in Case No. 42 of 1967, under Section 145, Cr. P. C. be quashed.2. Party No. 1, Sajjan Singh son of Bhairun Singh, it is alleged, made a report at the Police Station, Bilara, with the allegation that Sajjan Singh, son of Jagannath Singh, Party No. 2, forcibly occupied his house, situate in village Chokri Kallan, on October 16, 1967, and that there was everypossibility of breach of the peace. On receipt of the above report, the Station House Officer of the said Police Station proceeded on the spot, on October 27, 1967, conducted inquiry and apprehended that there was imminent danger of breach of the peace. He then submitted a report, on October 28, 1967, to the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur, for taking immediate action by way...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »